[rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel (Issue 5)
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Mon, 24 November 2014 20:18 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF431A6FF3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:18:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JqkISmFG4OHv for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:18:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6971F1A6FE6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:18:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sAOKIj7s034167 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:18:45 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Orochi.local
Message-ID: <547392A4.4080309@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:18:44 -0600
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030708000505030801090809"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/ftknNJtMx5JlBojdimQyA8Tqewc
Subject: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel (Issue 5)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 20:18:48 -0000
I promised to propose a minor fix to the RFC 2119 use for the Issue 5 resolution discussed in Hawaii. The text on the slide was: > The message orientation of SCTP is used to preserve the message > boundaries of > user messages. Therefore, no more than one message MUST be put into an > SCTP > user message. If the deprecated PPID-based fragmentation and > reassembly is not > used, exactly one message MUST be put into an SCTP user message. I propose reformulating as: The message-orientation of SCTP is used to preserve the message boundaries of user messages. Therefore, senders MUST NOT put more than one application message into an SCTP message. Unless the deprecated PPID-based fragmentation and reassembly is used, the sender MUST include exactly one application message in each SCTP message. One of the things that flummoxed me a bit here in trying to rework the language is that "message" in the original formulation meant two different things: (1) an SCTP message (as in RFC4960) and (2) an application message (as in http://w3c.github.io/webrtc-pc/). I suggest that the document should include a terminology section that clearly lays out these two concepts with clearly-defined terms, citing these two specifications, and that the remainder of the document is rigorously updated to reflect that terminology (i.e. the term "message" should never appear by itself, only prefixed with an adjective to make it clear which of these two messages is meant). /a
- [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel (Issue 5) Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel (Issu… Michael Tuexen